Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting!
NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.
On January 11 2026 12:20 ChristianS wrote: Kwark obviously means Trump needs to be visited by 3 ghosts during the night.
I do think it’s funny how Kwark constantly accuses GH of being a revolutionary cosplayer, despite being arguably the most “firebomb a Walmart” poster on this forum.
To be fair, Kwark is a Republican and British. I'm pretty sure I'm supposed to be thankful for his help and consider myself quite lucky he doesn't rob my home for "cultural artifacts" to display as his on his mantle when he returns to his home.
On January 11 2026 12:20 ChristianS wrote: Kwark obviously means Trump needs to be visited by 3 ghosts during the night.
I do think it’s funny how Kwark constantly accuses GH of being a revolutionary cosplayer, despite being arguably the most “firebomb a Walmart” poster on this forum.
To be fair, Kwark is a Republican and British. I'm pretty sure I'm supposed to be thankful for his help and consider myself quite lucky he doesn't rob my home for "cultural artifacts" to display as his on his mantle when he returns to his home.
America has yet to produce any culture worthy of the British Museum.
On January 11 2026 12:20 ChristianS wrote: Kwark obviously means Trump needs to be visited by 3 ghosts during the night.
I do think it’s funny how Kwark constantly accuses GH of being a revolutionary cosplayer, despite being arguably the most “firebomb a Walmart” poster on this forum.
To be fair, Kwark is a Republican and British. I'm pretty sure I'm supposed to be thankful for his help and consider myself quite lucky he doesn't rob my home for "cultural artifacts" to display as his on his mantle when he returns to his home.
America has yet to produce any culture worthy of the British Museum.
I was talking about my jewelry, but yeah, fair point.
On January 11 2026 14:17 sevencck wrote: I thought everyone here was agreed that "choices have consequences." Notice the lack of moral character to the claim? Notice how it doesn't stand on its own and doesn't justify anything but power? Notice that you don't even believe the statement now?
Where's your "choices have consequences" metaphysics now, where a lady was doing something incredibly stupid and ill advised with law enforcement? Are you now proposing a moral standard?
You're living through the consequences of your own "choices have consequences" Reddit mod metaphysics, actually. Indifferent tyrannizing of your fellows for your half baked political ends will be met with the same indifference. Your political opposition is no more or less indifferent than you, I assure you, so take this moment to glance in the mirror.
As an old-style Canadian liberal watching US politics unfold, you (loony socialists) are right about one thing, fwiw. After all the craziness, double standards, and overt tyranny, I do think there are those among your political opposition who genuinely want to shoot you. Take that under advisement if you're considering ramming a LE agent with your vehicle.
The vehicle did not "ram" into a law enforcement agent. The rest of your post is equally misrepresentative.
I don't believe any of the ghouls defending this murder are arguing in good faith. All you need to do is ask yourself a few simple questions:
1) Was Renee Good complying with the orders to leave? Yes. Was she clearly communicating her intentions? Yes.
2) Did Jonathan Ross step in front of the vehicle, breaking the policy and putting himself in potential danger? Yes.
3) What was the speed of the vehicle when it came in contact with Jonathan Ross? Was it high enough to cause bodily damage to him. No.
4) Did his actions make the situation more or less dangerous? Clearly more dangerous.
He manufactured the whole situation from the start to get the slightest justification to murder her.
On January 11 2026 08:52 ahswtini wrote: So apparently if 'law enforcement' in the USA want to kill someone, they can just walk in front of their car and execute the driver in 'self defence'?
This has been the case for decades. If an officer feels threatens they are allowed ro use lethal force. No actual threat is required, just the officers perception of one.
One comment from a former soldier turned police officer has always stuck with me. A soldier patrolling the streets of Iraq during the height of unrest had a higher threshold for the use of lethal force then police patrolling in the US.
On January 11 2026 13:46 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: I love how "The car was driving into him" so quickly changes to "Did the car touch him or not?" And if that goalpost-moving wasn't enough, there's the conveniently missing information that the car touched him partially because she was starting to drive and partially because he broke protocol and purposely walked in front of the vehicle.
That was a question to test how honest you're being and whether you could admit to the car contacting him to begin with.
When you say the car touched him because he purposely walked in front of the vehicle, it is like saying someone got hit by a bullet partially because you pulled the trigger and partially because they walked in front of where you were going to point the gun. The car moving when it did is not a fixed act of God, it was her driving it, or you are muddling your phrase to imply maybe what happened is he walked into the path of it on purpose once it was moving.
On January 11 2026 13:46 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: And then there's that whole other piece of missing information that the car that clipped the attacker was moving at a speed of... what, 1 mph? The car was completely stopped, and the clipping of the attacker happened essentially at the moment the car's velocity increased from 0 because the attacker was right next to / right in front of the car as it started moving.
"Clipping" and "next to" is desperate. "The attacker" was forward of the bumper. The front of the car hit him. How is this not driving into him? I get you want to say it's a slow weak car and he survived so it can't be that bad. Fine. I don't get the wheels. You think it's impossible to drive into someone or something while also turning? Like whether she had another final destination in mind as she was fleeing or not, driving into him is at least a waypoint, no? The wheel orientation could certainly indicate maybe she didn't mean to drive into him. I'm not claiming her intent, I'm saying for him the car drove into him.
As the driver, she drove the car into him, deliberately or not. Is there an actual problem with my phrasing, or are you reading what you want, or is the "can't even" reaction just reflexive?
Or is that just the problem if the car is "driving into him" it means the whole case is gone? Driving through him is not better than into him. She may have been trying to drive around him, but failed. Let me be woke for a second and just let you choose what preposition so we can move on. Relative to "the attacker," where did the car drive?
On January 11 2026 13:46 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: It's not like the car was already rolling down a street and eventually barreled into someone.
That is the exact case where stepping in front of the already moving vehicle and shooting is not justified.
On January 11 2026 13:46 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: We can also clearly see that the shooting was retaliation for the woman trying to drive away, as opposed to self-defense or something reasonable,
Retaliation would need investigating any specific personal history between these two people but that also goes both ways.
On January 11 2026 13:46 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: given when the gun was shot,
After the wheels spun, and the car began moving in a forward gear.
On January 11 2026 13:46 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: where the shooter was located at the time,
In front of the car which then began moving.
On January 11 2026 13:46 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: and the fact that the car and wheels were turned away from the shooter.
Now does this last addendum actually matter to you, or is it just thrown in? If the wheels were perpendicular to the axles, would that change something for you - if not, why mention it? Is he allowed to shoot then? If that's the case, what angle is he allowed to shoot until, and how is he supposed to see and calculate it? Is that in the manual too? "More than 32 degrees to the right if you're standing 1.3 feet from the center of the grill, be prepared to be hit but probably survive, so hold fire. Also, account for ice, the actual lowercase water kind, in cold weather."
Very difficult to hold humans to recalculating all this BS as everyone's relative positions constantly change and any threat or fatal threat could appear at any moment as someone snaps. I'm good with his point of view is a car is about to drive into him, which is proven right by the fact that the car drove into him, and to avoid this we shouldn't weaponize cars against federal agents.
And a lot of blue cities have these groups and cells weaponizing cars against federal agents. There was a controversial shooting case in October caused by coordinated vehicle blockading.
People do it on foot too of course, not just with cars. You can see them swarm agents in the field in in Nick Shirley's Chicago video. I don't know how they all get the time off work but I guess if something's important.
On January 11 2026 13:46 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: The amount of harm done to the shooter is equivalent to someone backing out of a parking space and bumping me as I walk behind their car... and it would be insane to then murder the driver.
Here is an officer being killed from a car that was completely stopped, whose velocity increased from 0, from a few feet away. Look how little time there is and explain whether she's justified in firing and what wheel angle measurements she needs to take in that... second. + Show Spoiler +
On January 11 2026 14:17 sevencck wrote: I thought everyone here was agreed that "choices have consequences." Notice the lack of moral character to the claim? Notice how it doesn't stand on its own and doesn't justify anything but power? Notice that you don't even believe the statement now?
Where's your "choices have consequences" metaphysics now, where a lady was doing something incredibly stupid and ill advised with law enforcement? Are you now proposing a moral standard?
You're living through the consequences of your own "choices have consequences" Reddit mod metaphysics, actually. Indifferent tyrannizing of your fellows for your half baked political ends will be met with the same indifference. Your political opposition is no more or less indifferent than you, I assure you, so take this moment to glance in the mirror.
As an old-style Canadian liberal watching US politics unfold, you (loony socialists) are right about one thing, fwiw. After all the craziness, double standards, and overt tyranny, I do think there are those among your political opposition who genuinely want to shoot you. Take that under advisement if you're considering ramming a LE agent with your vehicle.
The vehicle did not "ram" into a law enforcement agent. The rest of your post is equally misrepresentative.
1) Was Renee Good complying with the orders to leave? Yes. Was she clearly communicating her intentions? Yes.
This is important. Do you have a direct link with the orders to leave? Because then it gets into a real Daniel Shaver situation.
The proximate orders I heard were the newly arrived agents telling her to get out immediately before the incident. The only other "order" I heard was her wife telling her to drive. So I'm willing to believe part of the tragedy is someone hearing conflicting instructions from spouse and LEO and unfortunately choosing to listen to spouse instead, as spouses outrank anyone else, which is human but didn't end well here. If you can point to which officers actually gave conflicting orders and when, that would be helpful. All I saw was reports of witness testimonies who seemed to maybe have confused the wife's voice with a LEO order.
On January 11 2026 19:51 maybenexttime wrote: As usual, conveniently ignoring the relevant questions.
And by the way, Daniel Shaver was also murdered.
That's why I asked sincerely for proof of the orders to leave that you just claimed she was following. That would be important evidence. If you want me to pay more attention to your other questions here you are:
On January 11 2026 17:55 maybenexttime wrote: 2) Did Jonathan Ross step in front of the vehicle, breaking the policy and putting himself in potential danger? Yes.
Law enforcement are constantly in potential danger. That is the job. I think you're overapplying a don't approach cars from the front policy as never ever be in front of a car. Even civilians can be in front of cars.
On January 11 2026 17:55 maybenexttime wrote: 3) What was the speed of the vehicle when it came in contact with Jonathan Ross? Was it high enough to cause bodily damage to him. No.
The speed may have been, yes. There's also the angle and posture to consider.
Suppose it... accelerated? Suppose it dragged him like 6 months ago. Suppose it killed him like the woman from the bodycam 7 years ago I've linked twice. Suppose she backed up and hit him again. How does he know none of that is happening? Is there an arm-mounted incoming-car-threat-assessment-speedometer issued to these agents?
On January 11 2026 17:55 maybenexttime wrote: 4) Did his actions make the situation more or less dangerous? Clearly more dangerous.
He manufactured the whole situation from the start to get the slightest justification to murder her.
Okay. Why? Did they have a beef? Why'd he wait almost 20 years into his career? He couldn't have been manufacturing the thing from the start to get her back for fleeing when she hadn't fled yet. Why'd she give him the satisfaction of driving... into him? You think she had any percent role in manufacturing the danger when she drove to ICE operations and blocked the road with her car?
On January 11 2026 13:46 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: I love how "The car was driving into him" so quickly changes to "Did the car touch him or not?" And if that goalpost-moving wasn't enough, there's the conveniently missing information that the car touched him partially because she was starting to drive and partially because he broke protocol and purposely walked in front of the vehicle.
That was a question to test how honest you're being and whether you could admit to the car contacting him to begin with.
When you say the car touched him because he purposely walked in front of the vehicle, it is like saying someone got hit by a bullet partially because you pulled the trigger and partially because they walked in front of where you were going to point the gun.
Clearly those two aren't similar in the one meaningful capacity (i.e., the degree to which the life is threatened), because when the former happened the shooter was bumped and startled, whereas when the latter happened the driver was killed. It's not just a matter of being in front of any thing X, but rather what X is and how much danger you're actually in. It's ironic you'd "test" others for "honesty" when you just compared a car moving at almost-zero-speed to a bullet being fired from a gun.
In no other country in the world would this person still be walking free.
Of course, it's possible that someone makes a mistake, is a bad apple, trigger happy, paranoid, problematic, but in any country in the world where justice means something, this guy would be arrested and investigated, and no one in their right mind would have a problem with that.
It says a lot that the fascist boot lickers who love to drone on about rule of law have at no point at all mentioned that this might be a good course of action, at best, this is a highly contentious and problematic situation where the ICE agent clearly broke all kinds of protocols, but even insinuating that they should be investigated would be a step too far, all they want to do is shit on the murder victim and cheer on their new reich.
If it wasn't ICE but ATF and the federal government suddenly starting to target gun owning white people in red states, instead of brown people in blue states, by raiding their homes, taking their guns that "might be owned illegally ", and start arresting people for being "domestic terrorists owning illegal guns!"
oBlade would 180° on the spot and claim that this is federal overreach and people would have the right to protest and impede actions of ATF (E.G. Arresting unarmed gun owners at airports, because they can't fly with their guns and thus it's safer for the agents), because ATF isn't there for the guns or terrorism, but to terrorize people who vote MAGA.
oBlade would also start to go down the rabbit hole if legalities for gun owners, but wouldn't do the same for immigrants .. or even victims of insecure LEOs that just "where in the way".
On January 11 2026 22:58 Jankisa wrote: In no other country in the world would this person still be walking free.
Of course, it's possible that someone makes a mistake, is a bad apple, trigger happy, paranoid, problematic, but in any country in the world where justice means something, this guy would be arrested and investigated, and no one in their right mind would have a problem with that.
It says a lot that the fascist boot lickers who love to drone on about rule of law have at no point at all mentioned that this might be a good course of action, at best, this is a highly contentious and problematic situation where the ICE agent clearly broke all kinds of protocols, but even insinuating that they should be investigated would be a step too far, all they want to do is shit on the murder victim and cheer on their new reich.
The us has a legal system, not a justice system.
The shooter isn't arrested, because he is a symbol for what MAGA wants - Shoot people who are not blindly following.
POTUS has kidnapped a foreign President for "tons of drugs, trust me bro", is Thinking about overtaking an island, where US military can be stationed for absolutely free if they'd just ask the allied Lego-Country.. and is telling the goon squad to spread fear and hatred through NOT going after a murderer, because it makes Media talk about ICE and immigration, not Epsteinfiles, which should have been released a week ago.
The Greenland threat could probably be addressed by having Danish and European countries expand existing bases and maybe open new ones, with the stated goal of increasing Arctic security and providing more training opportunities for European navies and armies. Schedule at least all European navies and armies to have a month-long training period in the area for the next couple of years. It would address the supposed security issues and act as a deterrent against the USA. Any complaints would further establish that the USA is posing a threat to the area rather than acting as a concerned ally. Considering the buildup near Venezuela, it would take some time for the USA to build a similar force towards Greenland, and that would be quite telling in itself and would give time to react. Especially, with military leadership being against it, they would likely slow it down a lot, or even be willing to fail at the reparations, making the operation impossible.
I don't think oBlade would 180 if it was done by the Trump regime because he is fully bought in and clearly believes everything they say, plus, he clearly ignores questions and situations that arise that might be problematic for him to explain.
In the impossible scenario where Trump & CO go after their base, he's just ignore it and keep talking about something third here, while ignoring any direct questions, just like he ignores o so many things they do now.
If, in 4 years a Democratic president used executive power to go after anyone in the same way that ICE is doing now, there would be blood on the streets, lots of it, because right wingers don't care about human life and are armed to the teeth, and guys like oBlade would have 0 problems cheering on the murder of federal law enforcement agents, because this is not about principles, it's about teams.
Regarding Greenland and supposed "security issues", come on, it's all bullshit, go look at the US Security doctrine, they don't give a fuck about China or Russia who are the ones that the Arctic should be secured against, they want to dominate the western hemisphere by force and coerce and use propaganda tools to do regime change in Europe, because Europe is a thorn in their side, same as in the side of Russia and China, we are here for all the world to see that you can have healthcare, social safety net and good lives without being imperialist or expansionist and while everyone has equal rights and isn't demonized or prosecuted.
On January 11 2026 19:51 maybenexttime wrote: As usual, conveniently ignoring the relevant questions.
And by the way, Daniel Shaver was also murdered.
That's why I asked sincerely for proof of the orders to leave that you just claimed she was following. That would be important evidence. If you want me to pay more attention to your other questions here you are:
On January 11 2026 17:55 maybenexttime wrote: 2) Did Jonathan Ross step in front of the vehicle, breaking the policy and putting himself in potential danger? Yes.
Law enforcement are constantly in potential danger. That is the job. I think you're overapplying a don't approach cars from the front policy as never ever be in front of a car. Even civilians can be in front of cars.
On January 11 2026 17:55 maybenexttime wrote: 3) What was the speed of the vehicle when it came in contact with Jonathan Ross? Was it high enough to cause bodily damage to him. No.
The speed may have been, yes. There's also the angle and posture to consider.
Suppose it... accelerated? Suppose it dragged him like 6 months ago. Suppose it killed him like the woman from the bodycam 7 years ago I've linked twice. Suppose she backed up and hit him again. How does he know none of that is happening? Is there an arm-mounted incoming-car-threat-assessment-speedometer issued to these agents?
On January 11 2026 17:55 maybenexttime wrote: 4) Did his actions make the situation more or less dangerous? Clearly more dangerous.
He manufactured the whole situation from the start to get the slightest justification to murder her.
Okay. Why? Did they have a beef? Why'd he wait almost 20 years into his career? He couldn't have been manufacturing the thing from the start to get her back for fleeing when she hadn't fled yet. Why'd she give him the satisfaction of driving... into him? You think she had any percent role in manufacturing the danger when she drove to ICE operations and blocked the road with her car?
Just making sure you're consistent. Do you think the Capitol police should've opened fire on the J6 protesters who broke in? Surely that was a way more threatening situation for them, than whatever this was.
On January 12 2026 00:25 KT_Elwood wrote: If it wasn't ICE but ATF and the federal government suddenly starting to target gun owning white people in red states, instead of brown people in blue states, by raiding their homes, taking their guns that "might be owned illegally ", and start arresting people for being "domestic terrorists owning illegal guns!"
oBlade would 180° on the spot and claim that this is federal overreach and people would have the right to protest and impede actions of ATF (E.G. Arresting unarmed gun owners at airports, because they can't fly with their guns and thus it's safer for the agents), because ATF isn't there for the guns or terrorism, but to terrorize people who vote MAGA.
oBlade would also start to go down the rabbit hole if legalities for gun owners, but wouldn't do the same for immigrants .. or even victims of insecure LEOs that just "where in the way".
I'm all for going after illegal guns buddy.
Neither ICE nor the ATF have the authority to raid random homes without warrants. People have the right to protest, not impede. The legalities aren't that hard. Apparently a segment of revolutionaries believe they have found ways to exploit the system and rules of engagement and impede law enforcement by using "this one neat trick" to create dilemma after dilemma for LEO. It's transparent, obnoxious, and tiring. It's also dangerous. Here's an example with minimal consequences: + Show Spoiler +
This woman probably thought she was doing a great civil disobedient thing. In pursuit of great justice. Then reality hits and it turns out most people aren't up to that, they aren't ready for the consequences. Which is fine. Now just like what happened a few days ago, do I feel sorry for her at some level if I watch that, does the protector instinct set in? Absolutely. Do I blame the men pushing her out of the way and taking her into custody? Absolutely not. I just think about the people in her circle and around the world who fed her poison and put her up to it, or who weren't strong enough to talk her down from it, or the cowards watching and even cheering on from the sidelines using her like a pawn in a giant propaganda war.
I get you really want there to be a "what if Democrats went after Republican voters the way Republicans went after illegal immigrants and criminals" but all this does is leave me scratching my head why you think those things are analogous and what kind of confession that is. It is not my fault if Democrats have built their platform on crime and fraud, but they can't expect to do that and cry political persecution when people oppose it. They should have just opposed it themselves to begin with.
How do illegal immigrants get houses in Minnesota? Do they just "fall through the cracks" with the municipal administrations and real estate companies? I didn't know all these people were stealing houses from other, more deserving Americans. Such a systemic problem should surely be addressed and solved prudently!
EPT
![[image loading]](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/G-QSOIzWsAAjdZz.jpg)
